Why do you attend (or not attend) CHI?

31 Mar 2005 - 10:41am
9 years ago
18 replies
809 reads
ErikaOrrick
1969

The fact that we have close to 20 people interested in dinner on Monday
brought up an interesting question for me. As a one of the few
practitioners (as opposed to corporate research or academia) on the CHI
conference committee for two different years now, one of the things that
is always a struggle is the balancing of needs across several groups.
There have long been complaints that CHI is "too academic" etc. So, my
question is, what things, to you as an interaction designer, does CHI do
well or not well? Why do you come to the conference or why do you avoid
it? (Besides to see Jared's latest presentation :) What other
conferences do you try to hit?

I can't promise anything will change, but I've got some end of
conference reports to file that I can include some information in.

Erika

Comments

31 Mar 2005 - 10:54am
Todd Warfel
2003

Too theory driven and not enough involvement from industry
practitioners.

At Cornell last year, I was on a panel contrasting the "real" world
with academia where we discussed what academia could do to better
prepare their students for the real world, as well as what both
academia and the real world could learn from each other.

In short, the biggest advantage academia has over the commercial world
is research. Academia has access to grants which allows them to do
research that's difficult to do in the commercial arena. But they are
really weak in applied practice. Their focus tends to be very lab
driven and theoretical. But theory only goes so far.

So, as a practitioner, the main reason I've avoided CHI to this point
is too much theory and not enough practice.

On the flip side, I'd be interested in seeing more "what went wrong" in
the commercial world - bloopers and blunders. We don't share enough of
that, which is just as important as what went right.

I try and hit IA Summit and DUX - DUX had an essential blend of
theoretical and practical presentations.

On Mar 31, 2005, at 10:41 AM, Erika Orrick wrote:

> So, my question is, what things, to you as an interaction designer,
> does CHI do well or not well? Why do you come to the conference or
> why do you avoid it? (Besides to see Jared's latest presentation :)
> What other conferences do you try to hit?

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
Partner, Design & Usability Specialist
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
V: (607) 339-9640
E: twarfel at messagefirst.com
W: messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com/
--------------------------------------
Problems are just opportunities for success.

31 Mar 2005 - 11:21am
Bill DeRouchey
2010

Agree. On one hand, I want to see what new and different ideas are out
there. On the other, I want to see what's worked and hasn't.

But the other reason you don't see industry practitioners involved is the
deadlines. By the time CHI was on my mental radar and we're budgeting for
the year's events, the deadline for presenting was long gone.

Bill

> From: Todd Warfel

> Too theory driven and not enough involvement from industry practitioners.

31 Mar 2005 - 12:10pm
Mike Beltzner
2004

I've had similar problems justifying trips to CHI -- looks
interesting, but not practical enough for my practioner-self to really
spend the time and money on. Are the UPA conferences any better?

(thanks for the tip on DUX ... I'll check out the '05 plans with interest!)

cheers,
mike beltzner

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:21:43 -0800, Bill DeRouchey <bill at flume.com> wrote:
> Agree. On one hand, I want to see what new and different ideas are out
> there. On the other, I want to see what's worked and hasn't.

31 Mar 2005 - 12:49pm
Robert Reimann
2003

The majority of these conferences tend to attract more
academic than industry/practitioner involvement for a
particular reason: academia is driven by the publishing and
sharing of discoveries amongst peers, while it is not in the
interest of industry to do the same. Why (from an exec's
point of view) should a company have any desire to share
possible trade secrets and IP (even its bloopers and
other negative lessons) with potential competitors?
And design firms, who generally could use the PR are constrained
by confidentiality agreements. Since case studies from
industry don't get submitted, industry practitioners aren't
given incentive to attend, and the cycle continues.

I agree with Todd that DUX has been the best so far at
achieving a balance. My impression was that the organizers
really went out of their way to find industry practitioners
willing to share case studies with the public. This kind
of effort is really what's necessary to involve practitioners
more, and the way to do it is to get very persuasive people
with deep industry contacts (and an interest in using them)
on the steering committees of these conferences.

Robert.

---

Robert Reimann
Manager, User Interface Design and Research

Bose Corporation
The Mountain
Framingham, MA 01701

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.com] On Behalf Of Todd Warfel
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:55 AM
To: Erika Orrick
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Why do you attend (or not attend) CHI?

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
material.]

Too theory driven and not enough involvement from industry
practitioners.

At Cornell last year, I was on a panel contrasting the "real" world
with academia where we discussed what academia could do to better
prepare their students for the real world, as well as what both
academia and the real world could learn from each other.

In short, the biggest advantage academia has over the commercial world
is research. Academia has access to grants which allows them to do
research that's difficult to do in the commercial arena. But they are
really weak in applied practice. Their focus tends to be very lab
driven and theoretical. But theory only goes so far.

So, as a practitioner, the main reason I've avoided CHI to this point
is too much theory and not enough practice.

On the flip side, I'd be interested in seeing more "what went wrong" in
the commercial world - bloopers and blunders. We don't share enough of
that, which is just as important as what went right.

I try and hit IA Summit and DUX - DUX had an essential blend of
theoretical and practical presentations.

On Mar 31, 2005, at 10:41 AM, Erika Orrick wrote:

> So, my question is, what things, to you as an interaction designer,
> does CHI do well or not well? Why do you come to the conference or
> why do you avoid it? (Besides to see Jared's latest presentation :)

> What other conferences do you try to hit?

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
Partner, Design & Usability Specialist
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
V: (607) 339-9640
E: twarfel at messagefirst.com
W: messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com/
--------------------------------------
Problems are just opportunities for success.

31 Mar 2005 - 1:10pm
Dave Malouf
2005

While I agree w/ Robert's breakdown below, I just wanted to point out that
the IA Summit (I went only once) is a great example of a conference that is
great for practitioners and is NOT solely an academic/research thing.

I wrote a blog entry about what I think would be a good UX conference awhile
back but I think limiting to the DUX case study model is not enough. But DUX
+ workshops/tutorials and presentations would be really great.
http://synapticburn.com/comments.php?id=21_0_1_0_C

Another aspect about CHI in particular is that you have to know how to write
a paper and this is not taught to those in the game right now.

-- dave

On 3/31/05 12:49 PM, "Reimann, Robert" <Robert_Reimann at bose.com> wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
>
>
> The majority of these conferences tend to attract more
> academic than industry/practitioner involvement for a
> particular reason: academia is driven by the publishing and
> sharing of discoveries amongst peers, while it is not in the
> interest of industry to do the same. Why (from an exec's
> point of view) should a company have any desire to share
> possible trade secrets and IP (even its bloopers and
> other negative lessons) with potential competitors?
> And design firms, who generally could use the PR are constrained
> by confidentiality agreements. Since case studies from
> industry don't get submitted, industry practitioners aren't
> given incentive to attend, and the cycle continues.
>
> I agree with Todd that DUX has been the best so far at
> achieving a balance. My impression was that the organizers
> really went out of their way to find industry practitioners
> willing to share case studies with the public. This kind
> of effort is really what's necessary to involve practitioners
> more, and the way to do it is to get very persuasive people
> with deep industry contacts (and an interest in using them)
> on the steering committees of these conferences.
>
> Robert.
>
> ---
>
> Robert Reimann
> Manager, User Interface Design and Research
>
> Bose Corporation
> The Mountain
> Framingham, MA 01701
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
> ers.com] On Behalf Of Todd Warfel
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:55 AM
> To: Erika Orrick
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Why do you attend (or not attend) CHI?
>
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Too theory driven and not enough involvement from industry
> practitioners.
>
> At Cornell last year, I was on a panel contrasting the "real" world
> with academia where we discussed what academia could do to better
> prepare their students for the real world, as well as what both
> academia and the real world could learn from each other.
>
> In short, the biggest advantage academia has over the commercial world
> is research. Academia has access to grants which allows them to do
> research that's difficult to do in the commercial arena. But they are
> really weak in applied practice. Their focus tends to be very lab
> driven and theoretical. But theory only goes so far.
>
> So, as a practitioner, the main reason I've avoided CHI to this point
> is too much theory and not enough practice.
>
> On the flip side, I'd be interested in seeing more "what went wrong" in
> the commercial world - bloopers and blunders. We don't share enough of
> that, which is just as important as what went right.
>
> I try and hit IA Summit and DUX - DUX had an essential blend of
> theoretical and practical presentations.
>
> On Mar 31, 2005, at 10:41 AM, Erika Orrick wrote:
>
>> So, my question is, what things, to you as an interaction designer,
>> does CHI do well or not well? Why do you come to the conference or
>> why do you avoid it? (Besides to see Jared's latest presentation :)
>
>> What other conferences do you try to hit?
>
> Cheers!
>
> Todd R. Warfel
> Partner, Design & Usability Specialist
> MessageFirst | making products easier to use
> --------------------------------------
> Contact Info
> V: (607) 339-9640
> E: twarfel at messagefirst.com
> W: messagefirst.com
> AIM: twarfel at mac.com
> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com/
> --------------------------------------
> Problems are just opportunities for success.
> _______________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
> Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/

-- dave

David Heller
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixdg.org
dave at ixdg.org
dave at synapticburn.com
AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

31 Mar 2005 - 1:27pm
Todd Warfel
2003

Excellent point, David. And in addition, their "papers" must follow a
very "CHI" format, which is non-standard for the "real" industry world.

That's a big peeve of mine for both going to CHI and reading the
material that comes out of it.

On Mar 31, 2005, at 1:10 PM, David Heller wrote:

> Another aspect about CHI in particular is that you have to know how to
> write
> a paper and this is not taught to those in the game right now.

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
Partner, Design & Usability Specialist
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
V: (607) 339-9640
E: twarfel at messagefirst.com
W: messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com/
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

31 Mar 2005 - 1:32pm
Dave Malouf
2005

For IxDGers in particular CHI should be a place to go. You SHOULD be going.
Why? B/c this is where your peers are for the most part. It is the only
place where software designers are going b/c it is the ³only significant
game² in town.

I¹m so excited that IxDG is going to be there, in a booth (Thanx Pabini!)
working at the Development Consortium with other groups in the UX sphere,
and taking our seat at a very big and welcoming table.

I also want to point out that there are 2 days worth of stuff at the Design
Expo which is done in the same way as the DUX conference.

-- dave

On 3/31/05 1:27 PM, "Todd Warfel" <lists at toddwarfel.com> wrote:

> Excellent point, David. And in addition, their "papers" must follow a very
> "CHI" format, which is non-standard for the "real" industry world.
>
> That's a big peeve of mine for both going to CHI and reading the material that
> comes out of it.
>
> On Mar 31, 2005, at 1:10 PM, David Heller wrote:
>
>> Another aspect about CHI in particular is that you have to know how to write
>> a paper and this is not taught to those in the game right now.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Todd R. Warfel
> Partner, Design & Usability Specialist
> MessageFirst | making products easier to use
> --------------------------------------
> Contact Info
> V: (607) 339-9640
> E: twarfel at messagefirst.com
> W: messagefirst.com
> AIM: twarfel at mac.com
> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com/
> --------------------------------------
> In theory, theory and practice are the same.
> In practice, they are not.
>
>
>

-- dave

David Heller
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixdg.org
dave at ixdg.org
dave at synapticburn.com
AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

31 Mar 2005 - 3:34pm
Alain D. M. G. ...
2003

Hello!

I wish I could come to CHI, but I have the time and money for only one
conference per year (sneaked in just for the Sunday evening dinner at
the IA summit, to see what people on this list look like)and this has
to be UIST, because it is so highly concentrated. UIST 2005 is in
Seattle, October 23-26.

Alain Vaillancourt

Why do you come to the conference or why do you
> avoid
> it? (Besides to see Jared's latest presentation :) What other
> conferences do you try to hit?
>

__________________________________________________________
Lèche-vitrine ou lèche-écran ?
magasinage.yahoo.ca

31 Mar 2005 - 5:13pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Hi there,

I wasn't suggesting that people HAD TO go to CHI, but that we shouldn't be
writing it off b/c it is "academic".

Money and time are always personal considerations when it comes to choosing
a conference, and quite frankly so is content and community.

I would say as a first timer to the IA Summit that 60% of the value of the
IA Summit is community.

-- dave

On 3/31/05 3:34 PM, "Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt" <ndgmtlcd at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> Hello!
>
> I wish I could come to CHI, but I have the time and money for only one
> conference per year (sneaked in just for the Sunday evening dinner at
> the IA summit, to see what people on this list look like)and this has
> to be UIST, because it is so highly concentrated. UIST 2005 is in
> Seattle, October 23-26.
>
> Alain Vaillancourt
>
> Why do you come to the conference or why do you
>> avoid
>> it? (Besides to see Jared's latest presentation :) What other
>> conferences do you try to hit?
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Lèche-vitrine ou lèche-écran ?
> magasinage.yahoo.ca
> _______________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
> Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/

-- dave

David Heller
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixdg.org
dave at ixdg.org
dave at synapticburn.com
AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

31 Mar 2005 - 5:36pm
ErikaOrrick
1969

Dave makes a good point. I have been farily loyal to CHI since I started going as a student volunteer 8 years ago precisely because I knew the crowd and have made some excellent contacts there. We (CHI) is making some progress in the practitioner side of things, there is the Design Expo this year, as well as an invited panel about support user experience practitioners. Part of me keep sticking around because I think the exposure to the "academic" side of things is valuable if we could just get the right balance of practical as well.

It has been very interesting to hear your opinions about other conferences as well, though, since eventually I do need to branch out.

Erika

-----Original Message-----
From: David Heller [mailto:dave at ixdg.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 4:31 PM
To: Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt; Erika Orrick; discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Why do you attend (or not attend) CHI?

Hi there,

I wasn't suggesting that people HAD TO go to CHI, but that we shouldn't be
writing it off b/c it is "academic".

Money and time are always personal considerations when it comes to choosing
a conference, and quite frankly so is content and community.

I would say as a first timer to the IA Summit that 60% of the value of the
IA Summit is community.

-- dave

On 3/31/05 3:34 PM, "Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt" <ndgmtlcd at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> Hello!
>
> I wish I could come to CHI, but I have the time and money for only one
> conference per year (sneaked in just for the Sunday evening dinner at
> the IA summit, to see what people on this list look like)and this has
> to be UIST, because it is so highly concentrated. UIST 2005 is in
> Seattle, October 23-26.
>
> Alain Vaillancourt
>
> Why do you come to the conference or why do you
>> avoid
>> it? (Besides to see Jared's latest presentation :) What other
>> conferences do you try to hit?
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Lèche-vitrine ou lèche-écran ?
> magasinage.yahoo.ca
> _______________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
> Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/

-- dave

David Heller
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixdg.org
dave at ixdg.org
dave at synapticburn.com
AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

31 Mar 2005 - 5:49pm
Dave Malouf
2005

> It has been very interesting to hear your opinions about other conferences as
> well, though, since eventually I do need to branch out.

This for me is the other important point. It is REALLY important that people
don't keep going only to the same places. It is really important to find
x-functional spaces or go to other discipline's spaces so that we learn from
each other.

-- dave

David Heller
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixdg.org
dave at ixdg.org
dave at synapticburn.com
AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

31 Mar 2005 - 5:55pm
Dan Saffer
2003

I also wanted to point out that DIS (Designing Interactive Systems) is
another conference that should/could be attended by interaction design
professionals (quite a number of whom were in attendance last summer).
DIS alternates years with DUX (at least in theory).

Dan

31 Mar 2005 - 7:44pm
Peter Merholz
2004

To answer the original question, and some of the follow ons.

Why do I not attend CHI?

Because it is a colossal waste of time.

Why is CHI a colossal waste of time?

Because it's geared too much toward research and academia.

Because, when I look over the program guide, I get an attack of ennui,
as very little is relevant to me, and a lot is wanker-y.

Because, when I've attended CHI or DIS in the past, the bulk of the
sessions are Paper talks, where people stand up and read what they've
written. Um, I can read, too, you know.

Because the ACM's guidelines for accepting proposals and papers are too
restrictive, and require too much work, and thus are geared toward
people for whom "publishing" is incented (i.e., academics), and
discourages people for whom spending a lot of time "publishing" would
be disincented (i.e., people in the Working World).

Why else do I not attend CHI?

Because conferences like the IA Summit have an appropriate mix of
practice and research, because it addresses problems relevant to my
work, and because the community is amazing.

I encourage Interaction Designers to put on their own show. I think
there's a gaping hole in quality relevant Interaction Design discourse,
particularly at the conference level, and I think if some of the folks
on this list decided said, "Hey! Let's put on a show!" you'd get a
great response.

--peter

I also hate hate hate hate the acronym IxDG because it's
a) ugly
b) unpronounceable
c) confusing

On Mar 31, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Erika Orrick wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Dave makes a good point. I have been farily loyal to CHI since I
> started going as a student volunteer 8 years ago precisely because I
> knew the crowd and have made some excellent contacts there. We (CHI)
> is making some progress in the practitioner side of things, there is
> the Design Expo this year, as well as an invited panel about support
> user experience practitioners. Part of me keep sticking around
> because I think the exposure to the "academic" side of things is
> valuable if we could just get the right balance of practical as well.
>
> It has been very interesting to hear your opinions about other
> conferences as well, though, since eventually I do need to branch out.
>
> Erika
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Heller [mailto:dave at ixdg.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 4:31 PM
> To: Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt; Erika Orrick;
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Why do you attend (or not attend) CHI?
>
> Hi there,
>
> I wasn't suggesting that people HAD TO go to CHI, but that we
> shouldn't be
> writing it off b/c it is "academic".
>
> Money and time are always personal considerations when it comes to
> choosing
> a conference, and quite frankly so is content and community.
>
> I would say as a first timer to the IA Summit that 60% of the value of
> the
> IA Summit is community.
>
> -- dave
>
>
> On 3/31/05 3:34 PM, "Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt" <ndgmtlcd at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
>> material.]
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I wish I could come to CHI, but I have the time and money for only one
>> conference per year (sneaked in just for the Sunday evening dinner at
>> the IA summit, to see what people on this list look like)and this has
>> to be UIST, because it is so highly concentrated. UIST 2005 is in
>> Seattle, October 23-26.
>>
>> Alain Vaillancourt
>>
>> Why do you come to the conference or why do you
>>> avoid
>>> it? (Besides to see Jared's latest presentation :) What other
>>> conferences do you try to hit?
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________
>> Lèche-vitrine ou lèche-écran ?
>> magasinage.yahoo.ca
>> _______________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
>> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
>> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
>> Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
>> Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/
>
> -- dave
>
> David Heller
> http://synapticburn.com/
> http://ixdg.org
> dave at ixdg.org
> dave at synapticburn.com
> AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
> Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/
>

31 Mar 2005 - 9:38pm
Dave Malouf
2005

> I encourage Interaction Designers to put on their own show. I think
> there's a gaping hole in quality relevant Interaction Design
> discourse,
> particularly at the conference level, and I think if some of
> the folks
> on this list decided said, "Hey! Let's put on a show!" you'd get a
> great response.

We are talking about it! We are, I promise. ;)

> I also hate hate hate hate the acronym IxDG because it's
> a) ugly
> b) unpronounceable
> c) confusing

So, as usual, Peter, you are being way to subtle in your opinions.

1 Apr 2005 - 8:03am
Dave Malouf
2005

> > I also hate hate hate hate the acronym IxDG because it's
> > a) ugly
> > b) unpronounceable
> > c) confusing

BTW, I have been thinking about this "issue" of what to call ourselves
for a long time. Probably much longer than I should. ;)

Here's how I see it. Ya gotta have an abbreviation. We are techies and
well everything gets abbreviated. So we can't just say Interaction
Design wherever we go.
IA = Info Arch, so even if we said we wanted to be Interaction
Architects we cant' call ourselves IAs, so that's out.

ID = Industrial Design & Info Design. They are both too connected to
what we do (yet far enough a part from each other) for us to just use
ID. It would be way too confusing to say that. I won't even get into
Interior Design. BTW, Interior and Industrial share the same building
at Pratt Inst and all the signs say ID ... unless you look at the
content of the posters you'd never know what they are talking about.

This experience is part of the reason I suggested the X. But I do
understand that people "don't get it" on first reading, but ifyou
didn't know what Information Architecture was would you know what IA
meant?

The only alternative I came up with is to actually change the name of
what we "do". And the only thing I came up with is Behaviorial Design,
which sounds REALLY bad b/c it makes us sound like brainwashers. So
that's out ... so no "BD". Software Design which is what I tell people
*I* do is not what all of us do, so that doesn't work, so SD is out.

Anyway, based on this analysis, I actually think that IxD is really
our best option. I like it b/c it fits w/ "Interaction 'by' design",
and it also represents that we are an incredibly x-disciplinary
practice, while at the same time having our own discipline.

-- dave

--
David Heller
E: dheller (at) gmail (dot) com
W: www (dot) synapticburn (dot) com

1 Apr 2005 - 8:05am
Dave Malouf
2005

On a completely different note, ya ever notice that most of the
CHI-WEB list is practitioner discussion? Do none of these people get
represented at the CHI-conferences?

Also, Alain, mentioned UIST ... I'd be interested in hearing more
about this conference. Isn't it a CHI sponsored conference? Is it
practitioner focused?

Also, practitioner != designer. There are practitioner researchers,
evaluators, and designers, and I'm interested in the
practitioner:designer scenario.

-- dave

1 Apr 2005 - 8:43am
Alain D. M. G. ...
2003

RE: UIST (User Interface Software and Technology)conferecne

>I'd be interested in hearing more
> about this conference. Isn't it a CHI sponsored conference?

Yes!

>Is it
> practitioner focused?

Not in your sense of the term. I think.

> Also, practitioner != designer. There are practitioner researchers,
> evaluators, and designers, and I'm interested in the
> practitioner:designer scenario.

Most of the people presenting at UIST are researcher-practitioners, if
I am to go by your schema. They are all academics or former academics
working in huge research labs at Intel, Microsoft, Fujitsu, etc.. I
suppose I go there to try to find out what might happen in Interfaces
in the next 10-20 years. I get this not as much from the new software
and gadget prototypes being presented (though about 10% or 20% are
really interresting and in my view worth the trip) but from meeting
"junior rocket scientist" grade PhD students and listening to them
talk, between presentations. These young guys (and a few ladies) are
several magnitudes ahead of me on any kind of intelligence scale, and
they always surprise me with their wide culture. I never expect that
from most engineers or computer folks, you see, so when it starts
bubbling in front of me it's always a pleasant surprise. Anyway, in a
few years or even months, these people (who do not constitute a
majority at the conference: there is a selection involved) are going
to be in positions to influence major choices in software and hardware
development, all over the board, whenever interfaces are involved. It's
interesting to know how they feel about things.

Alain Vaillancourt

__________________________________________________________
Lèche-vitrine ou lèche-écran ?
magasinage.yahoo.ca

2 Apr 2005 - 3:50am
CD Evans
2004

I don't attend CHI because it should be pronounced 'Cheeee'.

Peter is very valid in saying that IXDG is the three things below, and
I think:

"Hey! Let's put on a show, but get a nicer acronym first!"

DUX and DIS sound as big time as they are, so I'm a bit confused myself
about what makes a good acronym. No offense, great programmes, just
very commercial, and should be paid for that way. I still don't know
how on earth this comes across in a three letter word that doesn't mean
anything.

I'm still for DI, Design of Interaction. But I can see how that maybe
makes too much homage to the late would be queen for some, so I'm
willing to pass on it.

Any body know what the opposite of Chi is off hand?

Not doing the research right now,

CD Evans

On 1-Apr-05, at 10:10 PM, Peter wrote:

> "Hey! Let's put on a show!" you'd get a
> great response.
>
> --peter
>
> I also hate hate hate hate the acronym IxDG because it's
> a) ugly
> b) unpronounceable
> c) confusing

Syndicate content Get the feed